At the 16th hearing of the Independent Committee's inquiry into the devastating Wang Fuk Court fire, it was revealed that multiple complaints filed in the months prior had been repeatedly dismissed as "unjustified" due to insufficient evidence. Barrister Lee Shu-wun, representing the committee, highlighted how government departments appeared to shift responsibilities, leaving critical safety issues unresolved before the November blaze in Tai Po.
The inquiry first examined a complaint regarding hoisting safety, with Lam Sau-ching, an occupational safety officer from the Labour Department, testifying that colleagues had determined the outcome of the complaint.
Smoking complaint dismissed despite photographic evidence
Another key complaint involved construction workers smoking on site. The Labour Department had concluded this complaint was "not justified," stating that while cigarette butts were found, it was impossible to determine if they belonged to workers or residents.
Lee challenged this, arguing, "That doesn't mean no worker was smoking; it simply means the Labour Department was unable to successfully collect evidence." Lam agreed but noted that smoking on a construction site is only illegal if a fire hazard is present.
The inquiry heard that on July 20, a complaint email containing pictures of workers smoking on scaffolding was sent to the Labour Department. The department referred the matter to the Fire Services Department that same day, only to be told on July 22 that it fell outside their jurisdiction.
Lam explained that a colleague then followed up on the complaint but found no one smoking during an inspection, leading to the case being closed. However, Lee presented an August inspection record where "smoking" had been highlighted.
A subsequent letter from the Labour Department to the contractor, Prestige Construction & Engineering Company, included a reminder: "If flammable liquids...or substances or things that could cause a fire hazard, are used on the site, measures must be taken to prohibit smoking."
When Lee questioned why this warning was issued if no one was caught smoking, Lam explained it served as a general reminder, as there was no specific law to enforce against workers smoking otherwise.
Concerns over flammable styrofoam passed between departments
A resident's complaint about combustible styrofoam boards encasing their windows failed to be resolved after being passed between multiple departments. The complaint, filed through the 1823 government hotline, was initially sent to the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme.
According to a phone record from October 16, the complainant had already been told by the Housing Authority that issues of scaffolding safety and flammable materials should be directed to the Buildings Department. When the case was referred, a staff member advised that since it was a Home Ownership Scheme flat, the complaint should go to the Independent Checking Unit (ICU).
However, the ICU then referred the matter back to the Labour Department on the grounds that it involved bamboo scaffolding safety.
The Labour Department conducted an inspection on October 23, found the scaffolding intact, and ruled the complaint invalid. Lam stated that her department was only responsible for the scaffolding aspect, not the styrofoam.
On November 11, Lam sent a final note to the ICU, stating the case was handled but pointing out other issues—damaged bamboo, excessive dust, and flame retardancy of scaffolding netting—for the ICU to follow up on.
Lee described this as the ICU pulling the Labour Department "into the water," only for the Labour Department to "return the blame to the ICU." Ultimately, the smoking issue remained unresolved, and the complainant received no advice regarding the flammable styrofoam.
Lam admitted the report on the smoking issue could have been clearer but maintained that the styrofoam complaint was not within the Labour Department's scope of responsibility.
